V.R.GOPALAN Vs. A.V.USMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tenant in R.C.P.No.107 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Vatakara is the revision petitioner herein. The first respondent herein is the owner of the building which was let out to the appellant/respondent on 21.03.2003 by the previous owner of the building. On 03.07.2003 he purchased the property by a registered deed No.1648/2003 and he had let it on to the first petitioner. The present rent of the building is Rs.1,400/ - per month. Second petitioner is the daughter of the first petitioner, who is a registered Homeopathic doctor, successfully completed her graduation in BHMS. They repaired the petition schedule building for starting a Homeopathic Hospital for the second petitioner, who is depending on first petitioner. There is no other suitable building in their possession for starting the hospital. The tenant is not depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building and there are other buildings available in the locality. Though they approached the tenant for vacating the premises, he did not concede for the same. So the petition was filed for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

(2.) Tenant/respondent who is the revision petitioner herein entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the landlord, tenant relationship and also the rate of rent, but denied the bonafide need alleged. According to him, the petitioner has no intention to conduct a Homeopathic hospital in the petition schedule building and there is no space or amenities available for the hospital, in accordance with the norms and regulations of the Government and the need alleged is only a ruse to evict him from the petition schedule building. There is no suitable building available in the locality for shifting the business and he is solely depending on the income derived from the business conducted in the petition schedule building. So he prayed for dismissal of the application.

(3.) The second petitioner in the lower court was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the petitioners. The respondent in the lower court was examined as RW1 and no documents were marked on his side. After considering the evidence on record, the rent control court found that the need alleged by the landlord is bonafide and though it was mentioned that for starting a hospital, what was intended is only to start a clinic and the tenant is not entitled to get the second proviso protection and allowed the application under Section 11(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.149/2012 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode and the same was made over to Additional District Court, Vatakara for disposal and the appellate authority by judgment dated 05.08.2015 dismissed the appeal concurring with the order of eviction passed by the rent control court. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the courts below, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant before the court below.